db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: Features - Quick or correct??
Date Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:09:00 GMT
Hash: SHA1

Mike Matrigali wrote:

> In this case I think it is good that a quick implementation of intersect
> and except has been submitted.  Especially with new standard features it
> gives the community something to test that the feature is correct.  I
> believe these features will allow more applications to ported over to
> derby and thus give us more early feedback on what is important to do
> next.  The earlier it
> is submitted the more tests that can be submitted.

My comments in this thread are general comments and not related to
Jack's changes, that's why I changed the subject.

> If it runs too slow then performance can be addressed.

Performance can only be addressed later if the foundation is good, if
the foundation is bad then a re-write is needed which wastes time.

I just don't think the standard approach to any feature should be code
now and worry about performance later (when is "later" and who is going
to do it?). Thinking a little about the design and bouncing it off the
community early can only help a feature, and the quality of Derby.


And yes, I think an incremental approach to development is great, given
a good design. But since I can't read minds, I would need a contributor
to indicate that the patch is part of an incremental approach or they
believe the feature is complete.

Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


View raw message